In Honduras’ Supreme Court Elections, Civil Society Shows its Strength

By Katerina Parsons

Research and Communications Fellow, Asociación para una Sociedad más Justa

Versión en  español 


After three weeks, six re-votes, and many long nights of inter-party deal-making, Honduras has finally confirmed its 15 new Supreme Court justices, members of the highest judicial power who will influence Honduran law and policy for the next seven years.

The selection process has been troubled with questions about transparency and accountability, with various reports calling out the nominating committee for delaying the release of nominees’ CVs and polygraph test results, and the US embassy publicly naming candidates it suspected of connections with corruption and organized crime.

These questions, along with a lack of nominees representing new opposition parties Liberty and Refoundation Party (LIBRE) and Anti-Corruption Party (PAC), contributed to a stalled Supreme Court election process, the first in Honduran history to go to re-votes and secret ballots. The two opposition parties refused to vote for any approved candidates, leaving the Congress unable to obtain the 2/3rds majority required to appoint the court.

As the Congress voted six times on the same candidates, the opposition parties accused the traditional parties of trying to pass a flawed and non-representational court, while the traditional parties blamed them for obstructing a Constitutional process in exchange for bargaining power. Despite the delay and the protests, Congress elected the new Supreme Court on February 11th.

The stakes for a new Supreme Court are high in Honduras, where political corruption continues to threaten democratic progress. International anti-corruption initiatives such as the newly-signed Mission to Support the Fight against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH) depend on a robust judicial system, which historically has not been present in Honduras.

In the absence of reliable and timely data from the Supreme Court nomination committee, civil society stepped in to evaluate the Supreme Court nominees. Organizations such as the Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF), the Association for a More Just Society (ASJ, by its Spanish initials), and the American Bar Association (ABA) urged the nomination committee throughout the selection process to closely investigate the candidates and publicize their evaluation criteria.

As reported in an previous post, to enhance this pressure, the investigative team of, an independent online magazine and a project of ASJ, created an interactive online tool ranking candidates on their performances at public audiences. Based on DPLF’s best practices for the selection of members of the highest courts, Revistazo created a metric to evaluate the nominees’ legal knowledge, vision for the justice system, and public presence and trustworthiness. These rankings were published in an online database, titled “Ranking #JudiLeaks” where nominees’ results could be viewed and shared.

Revistazo found that the nominees eventually presented to the Congress contained a mix of the best- and the worst-ranked candidates. As the new court slowly took form, with eight Justices confirmed on January 28th, three on Feb 9th, and the final four on February 11th, it was clear that the final court would reflect this as well.

Honduras’ new Supreme Court is made up of ten men and five women, led by new Supreme Court President Rolando Argueta, who served previously as the Director of Prosecutors in the Attorney General’s office.

Revistazo’s analysis shows that these 15 are not the most qualified of the proposed candidates. According to Revistazo’s metric, eight members of the court earned scores of below 75%, with only two of Revistazo’s “Best 10” making it onto the court, and three of their “Worst 10” earning a spot (a few notes: “nervous and confused responses,” “indecisive,” “poor judicial arguments,” “without jurisdictional experience”). By the official nominating committee’s rankings, 13 magistrates scored between 66 and 75% on evaluations, and none scored above 85%.

Perhaps more troubling, the justices have not avoided being linked to corruption. According to results published months after the testing, three justices failed the required polygraph test, where they were asked about connections to crime and drug trafficking. One of the U.S. Embassy’s flagged nominees, Rafael Bustillo Romero, also made it onto the court.

While these findings are discouraging, the fact that this information is public is a step forward in transparency. Pressure from civil society placed unprecedented attention on the nomination process, and likely formed a more merit-based court than an unsupervised process would have produced.

The Supreme Court election illustrated many things about the complexity of Honduran politics, the difficulty of agreement across party lines, and the near-impossibility of finding spotless officials in a stained political environment. It also illustrated the power of civil society to monitor and affect the outcomes of political processes. Particularly as nomination processes become more strained and partisan, civil society organizations play a valuable role in performing politically neutral evaluations and developing recommendations for reforms.

The election process for this Supreme Court was important – but what is more important is monitoring over the next seven years, ensuring that the court serves justice to the Honduran people. Civil society’s participation in and commitment to this monitoring will be essential.

DPLF and ASJ are collaborating on a report detailing the process of the Supreme Court election with recommendations for improvements. The results will be published in March.

How were the new Honduran Justices evaluated:


ASJ Score

Nominating Committee Score
Flagged by US Embassy
Passed Poligraph Tests?
Lidia Álvarez Sagastume 47% (one of ASJ’s “worst”) 67%   National NO
Rina Alvarado Moreno 50% (one of ASJ’s “worst”) 67%   Liberal YES
Alma Consuelo Guzmán 53% (one of ASJ’s “worst”) 76%   Liberal YES
Miguel Alberto Pineda 67% 68%   National NO
Rafael Bustillo Romero 67% 70% X National uncertain
José Olivio Rodríguez Vásquez 70% 66%   National NO
Wilfredo Méndez Romero 70% 72%   Liberal uncertain
María Fernanda Castro Mendoza 70% 85%   Liberal uncertain
Edwin Francisco Ortez 77% 68%   Nacional YES
Edgardo Cáceres Castellanos 77% 70%   Liberal YES
Jorge Abilio Serrano 83% 68%   Liberal uncertain
Jorge Alberto Zelaya Zaldaña 87% 69%   National uncertain
Rolando Edgardo Argueta Pérez 87% 74%   National YES
Reina Auxiliadora Hércules Rosa 90%

(one of ASJ’s “best”)

70%   National YES
Reynaldo Antonio Hernández 100%

(one of ASJ’s “best”

66%   National YES

Acerca de Justicia en las Américas

Este es un espacio de la Fundación para el Debido Proceso (DPLF, por sus siglas en inglés) en el que también colaboran las personas y organizaciones comprometidas con la vigencia de los derechos humanos en el continente americano. Aquí encontrará información y análisis sobre los principales debates y sucesos relacionados con la promoción del Estado de Derecho, los derechos humanos, la independencia judicial y el fortalecimiento de la democracia en América Latina. Este blog refleja las opiniones personales de los autores en sus capacidades individuales. Las publicaciones no representan necesariamente a las posiciones institucionales de DPLF o los integrantes de su junta directiva. / This blog is managed by the Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF) and contains content written by people and organizations that are committed to the protection of human rights in Latin America. This space provides information and analysis on current debates and events regarding the rule of law, human rights, judicial independence, and the strengthening of democracy in the region. The blog reflects the personal views of the individual authors, in their individual capacities. Blog posts do not necessarily represent the institutional positions of DPLF or its board.

1 Respuesta

Deja una respuesta

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Salir /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Salir /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Salir /  Cambiar )

Conectando a %s